Return of the Living SB Movie Experiment: Pontypool

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Easy Rider

Suggested by Joker


This is basically 60's: the movie. Well, I'm not sure if it's actually how the 60's were like but it's certainly a good representation of the mark it left in history. I think the way it really represents that decade well though is by showing the mixture of optimism and disillusion that many people must have felt back in those days, especially young people, struggling to really find an identity knowing they didn't want to be what their parents had become but having no model to follow in order to create a new society.

It's also a deeply American movie, showing how people in the US went through the social changes of the time and of course, the whole film is soaked in American culture as the characters are travelling across the country to enjoy Mardis Gras and the movie also showing many beautiful and typically American landscapes as the main characters drive.

There isn't much of a plot as it's really more a movie about how people lived back in those days or at least how they experienced their own society in their daily life and it really shows the culture shock (but sometimes surprising osmosis) between the old values and the new dreams of younger generations, which is complimented by the acting of the main cast(and sometimes not-so-acting as the actors were apparently baked through pretty much all of it), with some great early performances from movies greats like Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Jack Nicholson and of course, convicted murderer and certified nutjob Phil Spector!

So in conclusion, it's a time capsule of the time as the 60's were coming to an end and people were starting to reflect on the state of counter-culture, which is helped by beautiful cinematography. I wouldn't say it's a great movie but it's definitely an important one.


And next time, we shall return to the familiar territory of British zombie films with the horror-comedy classic Shaun of the Dead.

[suave]

Can I suggest Superbad?

[Deleted]

Elite Squad: The Enemy Within


You'll appreciate the first film more after seeing this

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Aug 20, 2014 13:27:00 GMT -5 suave said:

Can I suggest Superbad?

Sure you can, why couldn't you?

*realizes what film it is*

... I'll just have to find your house and murder you in your sleep afterwards. *psychotic smile. Head twitch*

But more seriously for all I know I might love it. I won't know until I actually watch it... somehow I don't see that happening, though (me liking it, not me watching it. Like I said, I'm watching everything suggested and in the order it's been suggested).



And SuperSweet, now you're getting me curious.

[bob loves the Hurt Syndicate]

Fargo

[Deleted]

Aug 20, 2014 14:36:03 GMT -5 SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman said:

Aug 20, 2014 13:27:00 GMT -5 suave said:

Can I suggest Superbad?

Sure you can, why couldn't you?

*realizes what film it is*

... I'll just have to find your house and murder you in your sleep afterwards. *psychotic smile. Head twitch*

But more seriously for all I know I might love it. I won't know until I actually watch it... somehow I don't see that happening, though (me liking it, not me watching it. Like I said, I'm watching everything suggested and in the order it's been suggested).



And SuperSweet, now you're getting me curious.

Like don't get me wrong I really liked the first film but I can see how people may have hated it but the second one is so universally praised that can really only exist because of the first film. It's a different kind of sequel where sequels usually expand upon the story and improve aspects from the first, this is a film that you can actually edit as a four hour epic and nobody would bat an eye.

Just my opinion.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Aug 20, 2014 17:37:03 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

Aug 20, 2014 14:36:03 GMT -5 SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman said:

Sure you can, why couldn't you?

*realizes what film it is*

... I'll just have to find your house and murder you in your sleep afterwards. *psychotic smile. Head twitch*

But more seriously for all I know I might love it. I won't know until I actually watch it... somehow I don't see that happening, though (me liking it, not me watching it. Like I said, I'm watching everything suggested and in the order it's been suggested).



And SuperSweet, now you're getting me curious.

Like don't get me wrong I really liked the first film but I can see how people may have hated it but the second one is so universally praised that can really only exist because of the first film. It's a different kind of sequel where sequels usually expand upon the story and improve aspects from the first, this is a film that you can actually edit as a four hour epic and nobody would bat an eye.

Just my opinion.

Oh, I actually thought you meant it was the other way around: that the sequel is so bad that it makes the original look that much better.

Now I'm even MORE curious.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Shaun of the Dead

Suggested by The Pixel


Alright, let me start by saying: I liked it. It's important because... I actually didn't this movie very funny. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the jokes don't work as they did make me laugh but for a comedy... this is some of the darkest shit I've seen in any movie! Way darker than most serious zombie movies, I'll tell you that much. And I don't mean in a dark humour way, I mean it's genuinely depressing at times. I ended up on the verge of tearing up more often than I was laughing. And again, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just not what I was expecting. You know, I hear about this British comedy about zombies starring Stuart Ashen Simon Pegg and Nick Frost with a Bill Nighy cameo and I think "ha ha! What silly antics are they gonna get into?" and what I get is a really grim tale including themes of self-esteem, relationships based on lies, self-sacrifice and a bunch of very much non-comedic stuff.

In fact, the last third if not the whole second half of the movie pretty much drops the comedy entirely. Sure you've still got the cathartic fun of the battles but it's for the most part played straight and frankly, knowing some of the stuff that's going on, it feels less like comedy and more like how untrained average Joes would actually react in this situation. In fact, I generally feel like this kind of movies are more likely to be realistic should a zombie apocalypse actually happen than the ones with action heroes acting cool under pressure, and that's actually an aspect of this kind of movies I really like as it makes the characters feel more relatable.

But yeah, Jesus Christ, much darker movie than I had anticipated, and the thing is, the darker, more serious moments are brilliantly acted. Simon Pegg really shows his acting chops there. When he starts crying you really believe it, it doesn't look like Hollywood crying, which only makes it all the more poignant and, again, dark. Hell, even before the zombie apocalypse really begins things aren't exactly peachy, with Ashens Shaun being in a job he doesn't like with co-workers who disrespect him, his girlfriend dumps him, he and his step-dad hate each-other and his roommate wants him to kick out his best friend.

Oh and I also liked the amount of foreshadowing in the movie. Some of it is pretty obvious but in the middle of the stuff that's right in your face you find some subtle stuff that seems insignificant but later turn out to be... if not important, at least early warnings of things to come and not only that, I feel some of it really sells the characters' personalities and help make their later reactions more believable and really fleshes them out without having to drop exposition.

So yeah. all in all good film, good comedy on the first half but my God, that second half... that's some Romero shit right there, and even then Day of the Dead was more light-hearted. So even though it's a good zombie movie, I'm honestly having a hard time calling it a horror-comedy. To me it's more of a straight up horror movie with some comedic bits sprinkled in.



Coming up next... it's an event. I have two movies, suggested one after the other... and I just can't not watch back-to-back because... it's just the most perfect association one could possibly think of; it is as if the cinematic God had offered me this gift, this once-in-a-lifetime chance to do something special and so, I must make this a double feature. THE GREATEST DOUBLE FEATURE OF ALL TIME!

Metropolis

Sharknado

[bob loves the Hurt Syndicate]

Best double feature ever!!!

[Deleted]

The Worlds End. After reading your review of Shaun of the Dead I'm really curious of your reaction to The Worlds End

[The Pixel]

That was a really interesting way to look at Shaun of the Dead.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Well... here I go!

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

They say everyone's a critic. I think that's true and I do believe that makes me the only critic in the World who has seen Metropolis and Sharknado back-to-back, not to mention on my first viewing of either movie. Here we go for the first double review of the experiment:



Metropolis

Suggested by Red Impact


(Note: as you may have gathered from the screenshot I posted, the version I watched is the 145 minutes long 2010 restored version)

This is one of the all-time classics of cinema, right up there with Citizen Kane, Dr. Strangelove, Casablanca, Psycho, etc... and I can see why. From a purely visual and cinematic point of view, it's gorgeous. In fact, I was very surprised with how unique it looks. It's generally regarded as one of the best illustrations of the aesthetics of the time with its elaborate Art Déco sets and many films have attempted to emulate it, but it's incredible how it looks like no other movie; even when you compare it to other works of the time, it retains a very distinct style that you don't see anywhere else and I was very impressed with some of the special effects, especially for the time. It shows that it's a German film as the influence of expressionism is all over the place.

Through the entire film, I was frequently amused to see just how influential this film seems to have been on pop culture as a whole. Watching it, I found elements and themes that seem to have been homaged - intentionally or not - in many more recent works, from Star Wars to Brazil to Doctor Who to RoboCop to The Fifth Element. Hell, even in non-film works, I can't help but find connections between this and other works like Final Fantasy VII or even The Machine: Bride of Pin*Bot, if only for the visuals, which goes to show how much this film is ingrained in the common consciousness. Hell, just look at Rotwang and look at... ANY other mad scientist that came afterwards. Also, with that and Battleship Potemkine, that's two classic mid-20s silent films on political subjects I've seen that use a cover of La Marseillaise in their score. Weird.

But of course, as beautiful as the sets, the effects and the direction are, it's also an amazing story. Being made of 1927, the theme of class struggles was more relevant than ever and while Charlie Chaplin chose to cover this theme through comedy and satire with Modern Times, Fritz Lang went for a more metaphorical approach by setting the action in a dystopian futuristic society, and it's rather impressive that at a time when tensions could go high very fast, this film doesn't really take any side and in fact points out that entering an "Us vs Them" mentality can only lead to mutual destruction. There's probably always going to be differences between people but we need to work together for a common goal and realize that all groups have the same interests.

I also very much enjoyed the character of Maria. Not only is she amazingly cast as Brigitte Helm plays her wonderfully and looks beautiful and, much like the rest of the movie, has a very distinct look compared to most actresses of the time, but I was very impressed to see such an interesting and, frankly, pretty badass female character for a 20s film, from her rousing speeches to her taking matters in her own hands during the uprising. And of course, one can find a lot of interpretation for the duality between Maria and the Machine Man (wouldn't it make more sense to call it Machine Woman, though?), as well as the objectification of women or artificiality of their roles in the society of the time by literally turning her into an obedient machine.

Look, I just can't say enough good about this movie. If I explain all the ways I enjoyed it, we'll be here all week so let me just say: it definitely deserves its place in the pantheon of cinema; if you haven't seen it yet, give it a watch as soon a spossible and if you can, give the restored version a look.





Sharknado

Suggested by bob loves the Hurt Syndicate


Now this may come out as a shock so you might want to sit down but I find it to be the lesser of the two movies. I know, I know, you might want to take a moment to catch your breath. But seriously, this isn't a good movie and before anyone jumps at my throat saying it's not supposed to be good, that it doesn't take itself seriously or that it's just stupid fun... I get that but while it certainly is stupid, it is sorely lacking in the "fun" department.

First of all, you shouldn't ever try to make a film intentionally bad, because that makes no sense. Something can only be bad because something went wrong, that's the very definition of the concept, so it's literally impossible to make something intentionally bad. So please, filmmakers of the world, stop trying to design films to be so-bad-it's-good, it's just not gonna happen because the appeal of so-bad-it's-good is the accident. They're funny because someone actually set to make a genuinely good film and while trying to make something good, they somehow ended up with a trainwreck, they're funny because you can't believe that someone, somewhere went "yup, that's good stuff, let's release this".

The Room is funny because it seems incredible that Tommy Wiseau didn't realize how wrong everything was. Birdemic is funny because you can't believe that James Nguyen genuinely believes his special effects to be convincing. Troll 2 is funny because you can't believe that a human being would sit down, write the line "you can't piss on hospitality! I WON'T ALLOW IT!!" and think that is brilliant dialogue. Trying to do that intentionally completely misses the point of what makes it hilarious to begin with, it's like trying to make a joke funnier by explaining it, it just doesn't work.

And I also really don't like the idea that because it doesn't take itself seriously or because it's "self-aware" means it's okay for it to be stupid. Satire or parody isn't about doing stupid stuff while the plot is going on, it's about analysing what makes serious works good or bad and playing it for laughs. I just reviewed Shaun of the Dead and it actually provides a great example of parody done right during the scene where Shaun and Ed and throwing records at two zombies.
First, the concept of the scene itself is already funny because of all improvised weapons you could find, who the Hell goes with "vinyl discs"? Second, it also works because the whole time, they're picking which discs to throw and which ones to keep all while the zombies are closing in on them. That's funny because a lot of zombie films have the undead walk very slowly and this scene takes that concept to the extreme by having them walk so slowly that you can have a discussion and calmly pick which records to throw before they're even close to you and at the same time you can believe someone with particularly misplaced priorities to act this way in this situation. It's not stupid for the sake of being stupid.

Sharknado on the other hand, is one of these films whose creators seem to be under the impression that nonsense and stupidity are funny in and of themselves and that its premise is all the joke it needs. Hell, they pretty much admit it with the tagline "enough said". No, there is, in fact, not enough said, you need to actually do something with your idea. Yeah, a sharknado is funny because even though sharks and tornadoes are two classics of disaster movies, you wouldn't expect to put them together but you can't leave it at that.

An that's where this film completely falls apart: it's got this incredible, outrageous concept and does NOTHING with it. In fact, we don't even really have sharknadoes until 50 minutes into the film and even then it only becomes the focus at the very end. Before that, we do have sharks tossed into the city by gigantic waves caused by a hurricane (come on, guys! Shurrikane! It's right there!) and swimming around due to floods but no actual sharknado. Really it's pretty amazing how unmotivated and subdued everything feels.

For starters, everything and I mean everything is gray. There's some weird colour-correction going on and they went for the most boring colour in existence, which strips out any life the scenes might have had, which is not helped by a generally wooden article with a few exception. And everything is like that in this film. For a movie that's supposedly trying to be larger-than-life, nothing is particularly fun or cheerful, nothing is impressive, nothing gets you excited. Even the bits that ARE supposed to be cathartic fun are strangely restrained and lifeless as if they were for some reason trying to play this shit straight.

On top of that, there are also some bits where the movie tries to be serious and it just gives the movie a schizophrenic tone, like we're supposed to buy that the film about sharks being tossed around by tornadoes that get dispelled by throwing bombs into them is supposed to be profound. And you know what? This kind of stuff worked in Hobo With a Shotgun because it made sense within the context and the themes of the film (and also because Rutger Hauer acted the f*** out of the role, whereas in Sharknado all but two or three actors are in sleep mode) but here, there is exactly zero payoff for any the "drama".

None of this is helped by the attempts at actual jokes, which all fall flat, to say nothing of the many one-liners that are supposed to be badass or funny but just end up corny and forced, which is compelled by, once again, some very flat, uninspired and unmotivated acting. So in conclusion, Sharknado is supposedly a stupid fun movie that only got the first half of that right and doesn't seem to be sure if it wants to be a cathartic action film or a serious disaster movie that just so happens to have a weird premise and as a result it ends up having no identity, no personality and generally nothing really interesting about it.


Hopefully next time we can do better as I'll be taking a look at another animal disaster film that became famous on the Internet because of its silly premise and title. It's motherf'n Snakes on a Plane.

[Red Impact]

Aug 25, 2014 8:02:06 GMT -5 SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman said:

They say everyone's a critic. I think that's true and I do believe that makes me the only critic in the World who has seen Metropolis and Sharknado back-to-back, not to mention on my first viewing of either movie. Here we go for the first double review of the experiment:



Metropolis

Suggested by Red Impact

Metropolis is definitely an interesting piece, both as a case of early sci-fi and early cinema. The way it hands its themes show a surprising amount of tact and subtlety for a medium so new, especially when you consider how the same themes tend to be handled with all the subtlety of a hammer nowadays.

I'll also add that the contrast between these two movies must have made an incredibly interesting viewing experience.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Aug 28, 2014 15:32:54 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Aug 25, 2014 8:02:06 GMT -5 SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman said:

They say everyone's a critic. I think that's true and I do believe that makes me the only critic in the World who has seen Metropolis and Sharknado back-to-back, not to mention on my first viewing of either movie. Here we go for the first double review of the experiment:



Metropolis

Suggested by Red Impact

Metropolis is definitely an interesting piece, both as a case of early sci-fi and early cinema. The way it hands its themes show a surprising amount of tact and subtlety for a medium so new, especially when you consider how the same themes tend to be handled with all the subtlety of a hammer nowadays.

I'll also add that the contrast between these two movies must have made an incredibly interesting viewing experience.

Honestly the contrast between the two wasn't that harsh in the sense that Sharknado wasn't nearly as goofy as I expected it to be, it was just kind of there. And for a movie (supposedly) about a tornado made of sharks, it almost impressive in a strange way that they managed to make it... just there. It's not good enough to be fun, it's not bad enough to be laughable or get pissed about, it's really just scenes happening in front of my eyes. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it really felt like I only saw one movie. Probably doesn't help that Metropolis is well over two hours long while Sharknado is not quite an hour and a half long.

[bob loves the Hurt Syndicate]

I think that the ratio to quality movies to schlock isn't nearly as close as it should be so here's one of my favorite bad movies: Robot Monster (1953).

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Snakes on a Plane

Suggested by @supersweetbotch


Shit, has it been almost a month already?! Sorry, I've been nursing the whiplash from watching Metropolis and Sharknado back to back. That's my excuse anyway.

So, Snakes on a Plane, a title full of promises, does it fulfil them?... not quite (unless we're being literal then yeah, we certainly do have snakes on a plane). Thing is, to be perfectly honest, I didn't have high hopes going in as I felt it would be one of those supposedly self-aware films that aren't self-aware at all and just rely on their gimmick and it's kind of what I got BUT, I must say it was better than I expected.

It wasn't exactly good in my opinion, but I think it could have been a lot more fun, the problem being the pacing, as I felt the last third or so of the film was genuinely a lot of fun, I just it hadn't taken so long to get there. Yes, I know monster movies or, I guess it'd be more accurate to say "animal disaster" movies, like to take their time to build up the reveal of the creatures but look, we're paying to see a movie called "Snakes on a Plane" and that's what we want: some mayhem caused by snakes being on a plane.

And I wouldn't have minded the slow build so much if the characters were better. Well, they do improve over time (although I have no idea who thought it was a good idea to have Flynn, a cop, basically threaten another character into testifying against a mob boss early on, going so far as to imply that he would torture him if he didn't, as it just makes him come off as an asshole) and there was even one death in particular that actually made me sad, but my God for the better part of the runtime most of the characters are such tired stereotypes. The rich egotistical asshole (who hates kids and pets, of course), the rich egotistical rapper, the blonde ditz, the effeminate gay guy who turns out to be straight because that's hilarious and has never been done before, etc...

And really that's the big problem with this film: it's doing a lot of things that have been done to death (which actually made me realize just how many snake attack clichés there are in movies), like the snake that bites a dude's dick, or the one that crawls up a woman's skirt.

it doesn't help that it's a pretty dumb movie and no, it being an action film or a semi-comedy does not make it okay for it to be stupid (never understood the argument that film-makers don't need to make efforts if it's not dead serious). There were so many moments when I thought the characters' problems could have been easily solved and too many times when I went "Why don't they do the obvious thing?", "It doesn't work that way" or "why would they do that?".

I would also like to point out that the CGI effects are just terrible. According to IMDb, 450 snakes were used for this film but it really doesn't show as most shots use CGI, and it's really bad, obvious CGI, not helped by the fact that they're often shown in close-up and when you have a film that hinges almost entirely on actors interacting with animals, you've got a problem when these animals are this blatantly not there (also, are fake snakes really that hard to do in practical effects?). In fact, the few shots of actual snakes here and there only make the CGI all the more jarring.

however, with all of that said, I will give the film credit in that it gets gradually better over time and again, the last third is actually pretty cool, but with so much of the movie being crap, you can't help but feel it's too little too late. So I suppose this move will kill an evening with friends, but it won't do much good otherwise.


Next time, we'll take a look at a sci-fi film that already has my approval for having a ship with tits, it's Battle Beyond the Stars.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Battle Beyond the Stars

Suggested by El Pollo Guerrera


A sci-fi film made by Roger "the king of the B-movie" Corman, famous for making movies fast, within budget (which is quite a feast considering he usually had little of it to begin with) and... relatively well.

Let me tell you right away that it's not a film you're going to watch for the plot. It's not that it's bad but there isn't much to it, not to mention it's obviously lifted from other works (many people pointed out similarities to The Seven Samurais, not helped by hiring Robert Vaughn, who was in the Magnificent Seven, a remake of the film in a Western setting) and while the characters are interesting, there are just too many of them to give anyone some real development. What it lacks in originality story-wise though, it makes up for in visuals as indeed, the film looks really good... for the most part.

Yeah, a couple of the special effects are pretty bad and the costumes designer seems to hate Sybil Danning considering what they made her wear, but I must say it's one of the most visually creative sci-fi films I've seen. The film doesn't hide its influences, but it also manages to make it fresh again, with some sets, ships, costumes and make-ups being freaking insane. James Cameron was in charge of the designs and indeed he did a very good work, I especially like the way he managed to give different cultures their own aesthetic style, which helps cement the idea that this is a universe with very different civilizations. He also somehow managed to give a spaceship boobs and not having it look ridiculous. It's most probably one of the nicer looking Corman films.

My main gripe with the film is the editing. There are some very obvious and jarring cuts, some shots are blatantly recycled several times and I would also like to know how many scenes were cut from the final movie, as many scenes end abruptly and the next starts just as awkwardly, which doesn't help getting involved in the plot. It feels like there should be more to many scenes, some establishing shots, maybe but no, it jumps around very quickly.

Really though, it's not a bad film at all. While it lacks the polish of more famous (but also bigger budget) sci-fi works of the time, it's a pretty fun watch as long as you enjoy space battles and nice visuals. I don't know how much the every person would enjoy it but I'm sure sci-fi fans will find it to give them their fix when they crave visual originality.


Next time, we'll take a look at a film that has gained a reputation among some circles as an incredible cheese-fest, Deadly Prey. However, stay tuned for... something different...

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

That's right! 'tis the season to be spooky! And of course one of the bets parts of Halloween is the horror movies. We go see the new ones in theaters, watch classics at home and generally have good time with the video bogeymen. So I figured it would be a shame to miss the opportunity to properly celebrate Halloween in The Great SsnakeBite Movie Experiment so I figured we could break tradition a bit and, for one week until Halloween, instead of simply going through the list as usual, it would be nice to review one horror film per day.

However, I have 15 horror films suggested, and last I checked, weeks still only have seven days. So I think the best thing to do is have YOU vote for which 7 movies I should watch that week. Halloween Week will start on October 25th, menaing you have until the 24th (included) to vote, so choose wisely. Here is the list of eligible films, listed in the order they were suggested:



Would You Rather

Plan 9 from Outer Space

Ginger Snaps

Birdemic: Shock and Terror

Nothing But Trouble

The Collection

The People Under the Stairs

Stake Land

Pontypool

I Saw The Devil

Rosemary's Baby

The Shining

Dracula

Teeth

Robot Monster

[kidglov3s]

I vote for Teeth.